On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:09:11AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Note, as I said in the PR, for GCC11 we could consider performing some kind
> > of cheap DSE during the store merging (perhaps guarded with flag_tree_dse).
> > And another thing to consider is only consider as problematic non-merge
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled in 8+.
> The problem is that check_no_overlap has a special case for INTEGER_CST
> marked stores (i.e. stores of constants), if both all currenly merged stores
> and the one under consideration for merging w
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled in 8+.
The problem is that check_no_overlap has a special case for INTEGER_CST
marked stores (i.e. stores of constants), if both all currenly merged stores
and the one under consideration for merging with them are marked that way,
it anticipates that other
